Talk Page Archives

We've been over this. I do not believe I have ownership over an article. What I believe is that your edits to the 2012 page are constructed in such a way that undermines the entire point of them. Listing the race as startsing in "2012 or 2013" negates the need for it to be included on the 2012 page, and you've long held the view that the 2012 page is unneccessary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, remember the episode over the USGP? You refused to have it included in the table on the basis that it "might not happen" despite a contract existing and dozens of sources to support it. In the end, I had to go to WP:F1 and get a consensus from the community just to convince you to include it, when anybody else would have simply added it in without argument. You gave me some crap about having "higher standards of quality" or some such, and it didn't stick with anyone. So what the hell am I supposed to think when you've got a history of undermining pages like that simply because they don't adhere to your standards? We play by Wikipedia's rules, not yours. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not assume good faith because I believe I have an historical precedent. That does not mean I automatically assume that you're up to something every time I see your edits, but that I question the need for them. I compare what existed and what it has been changed to before reverting edits and the reasons for making those changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disliked edits that you made because they removed valid information from an article simply because you felt it was unworthy of inclusion and that you clearly felt that your standards were the ones we should adhere to, as opposed to the standards that the rest of Wikipedia follows as if you are somehow an authority on the subject. Add to that the fact that I needed to get consensus for what should have been a non-issue just to get important information edited into an article that on any other page and with any other editor would have been included as a matter of due course. I don't like your edits because you clearly subvert the entire article; you have made your dislike of it clear in the past and because your removal of this information subverts and undermines the page. You remove pertinent information with the end result being that the article is little more than a skeleton of itself, serving no purpose and therefore being a candidate for deletion. If you have an issue with the 2012 page existing, then put it to consensus like everybody else would do instead of being sneaky about it and trying to exorcise enough information to justify AfD simply because you don't think it's worthy. That's why I don't like you - because you think you're a law unto yourself and that you should have your way even when consensus disagrees with you. So go ahead, get a moderator involved. I've got at least three examples from that page where your actions have subverted and undermined a page. That's why I think you have an agenda: because you ignore consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My belief of the way the article should be reflects the way I believe Wikipedia should be: as whole and complete a resource of information as possible. Provided information is properly referenced and is noteworthy, then it should be included in some way shape or form. It is the way I have written every article, and the way I have seen every article written. When you removed that information about the USGP from the 2012 page, you violated my belief about what Wikipedia is - but when I went to WP:F1 and argued for its inclusion, I got a consensus that said I was right. I improve Wikipedia by including all relevant information. You do not - as I have said, you have a history of removing information because you do not like the edits made because they do not align with your self-confessed beliefs about what is worthy of inclusion. It's called Wikipedia and not Lucypedia for a reason. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point of view. I have for a long time. And I cannot say that I have ever agreed with it once. Now, you'll no doubt assume that I simply jump to conclusions, but I have already told you that I do not. I look at what was written, what was changed and what it means for the article before I revert any edits. And I have not seen any from you that I can genuinely say were for the better. They only ever seem to peddle an agenda. You seem to have constructed this into being a one-man conspiracy against you. I will continue to judge the respective strengths of an edit regardless of who made it in the first place. For ome reason, you seem to think this is all about you. It's not. You just happen to be the most visible member out there. If you were to look at some of the edits I make - particularly outside the Formula 1 section (try the NCIS articles; the list of characters page in particular demonstrates this) - you'll see that this is the way I work on Wikipedia: assess the page, examine the edits made and follow through with neccessary changes for the benefit of the article. I have no further interest in discussing the matter. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify in what way is my recommendation for you to read wp:Civil, wp:own and wp:consensus any different from your repeated insistence that we all read wp:mos?

Throughout the Top gear discussions you have:

• refused to listen to other opinions - continually reverted to your own prefered format - wp:own & wp:consensus
• Insisted on using the terms "must" in your arguments, rather than the more friendly "should", or even better "in my opinion should" - wp:civil
• dodged answering questions about other formats suggested, or what you actually find either confusing or wrong about suggested formats - wp:civil
• suggested to other editors that they should read wp:mos when it could equally apply to you - except that it doesn't because MOS is about the style of an article, not the content - or even the potential cruftiness of the content.

I also see that your editing style & insistence is not recent with regard to Top Gear - several times in the past [1][2][3] you have removed the alternate descriptions, only for them to have been re-inserted by multiple editors. Note the important difference here - there are more editors re-inserting the details than there are removing them. a_man_alone (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. You are quite clearly unwilling to accept or listen to others, so indeed any more conversation is pointless. I will however leave you with the following that cannot be refuted:

• All my above comments are perfectly valid, in fact they relate only to Top Gear. what else could they relate to?
• You continously use the term "must", and although you did indeed start the topic, you did so as an an instruction[4], not as an invitation for discussion.
• Using a history is not only a perfect way, but the only way to prove a point. They're real diffs, so are neither bogus, nor tripe. I might add that suggesting my opinions are is also borderline incivility.
• Sorry, but two anon IP addresses and myself equals three contributors, and therefore counts as "multiple". Just because the editors either prefer to remain anonymous, are drive-by, or simply don't want to register does not lessen their value.
• You have refused to answer questions regarding what is or isn't confusing with regards to the suggested alternatives. (Should you break your silence, and just for old times sake, will you explain to me what is confusing about James Hewitt (credited as "Well spoken Man"))

And finally, your own attitude is far from ideal - I see I'm not the only brouhaha you're currently involved in[5]. Keep calm, and go for a cup of coffee. a_man_alone (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tried talking to you, with little success.
• I do judge individual edits on their merits - and I used edit history to show them.
• The Queen is Gay? That's so close to Godwins Law that I feel obliged to claim my five pounds.
• Wikipedia is not democracy - it is not a Dictatorship either.
• Mob rule is what you call it when consensus goes against you.

a_man_alone (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison of editors claiming the Queen is gay is so far removed from reality that it bears no relevance to the actual topic. That is my comparison to Godwins Law - you are choosing something outrageous to prove your own point.

Consider this discussion over as neither of us is getting anything useful from the other: you think you're getting farce, and I believe I'm confronted with obstinance - let's reconvene in a month or so, and we'll compare talk page warnings or something equally productive.

I'm off now for that coffee. a_man_alone (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved administrator I have moved your RFC to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RfC: United Kingdom Peerage titles, because the current location of the RFC had degenerated into questions about where the RFC should be placed rather than addressing the issue. You will get far more interest in this specific issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) than you will on the policy page.

I have asked an additional question which you lead into the RFC does not make clear: Where is the current "discussion going on over the titles for the people in the UK who have been given a peerage"? -- PBS (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy, you have forcefully interfered in the topic twice. Not that I'm very keen for the discussion to be restarted (at times, it is hopeless to have a meaningful discussion here), but I think you need to give a better justification than the one you gave. "Not a general forum"? The points raised by me were specifically related to how the article was emphasizing low priority concerns and neglecting the more serious ones. Secondly, who is arguing here "weather [sic] staging the games was right or wrong"? Did you even bother to read the points raised by me? Anyways, just forcefully deleting the comment and then closing it just even without bothering to read the concerns raised by me just shows how you can go around abusing your privileges as an administrator. I'm pretty sure that you'll delete this comment too. Enjoy! --King Zebu (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that you are not an administrator. Interesting. --King Zebu (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To King Zebu. Per the discussion on the talk page in question, it is not up to any single editor to rank or prioritise any given point. Discussion is fine, but putting down other editors just because they do not see eye to eye with you (King Zebu) is not constructive. Lucy marie's attempt at archiving that particular discussion was meant as a cooldown measure was not appreciated, so lets all monotor the situation for now. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Forceful intervention in an on-going discussion. Thank you. —Hasteur (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]